Ezra Klein: Credible Threat

« Bleg | Main | Romney, The Jews, And The Innovators »

February 14, 2007

Credible Threat

I'll second Publius's devastating critique of those who advocate keeping force on the table under the theory that a credible threat of attack will somehow deter Iran. His examination of the argument's many failures is thorough and I won't repeat it here, but it is worth saying that every time we utter a threatening or hostile word towards Iran, we underscore their case for nuclear weapons. Indeed, given the possible outcomes here, we should either invade the country tomorrow morning or simply stop threatening to attack.

Every time we so much as hint at invasion, we assure an anxious regime that they won't be safe till they've mastered atomic weapons. Conversely, if we took the much-maligned route of "taking options off the table," and simply stated that we've no interest in attacking even a nuclear Iran, but we commit here and now to ten years of stringent economic sanctions if they weaponize, we'd probably have a better shot at compelling ordinary Iranians to oppose the nuclear program. But it's absolutely nuts to continually threaten a sovereign country and then scratch our heads as they pursue the one weapon they know will forever deter our attack.

February 14, 2007 in Iran | Permalink

Comments

I bet you support John Kerry's position on how the US should have won the cold war (unilateral disarmament). Of course Kerry couldn't have been more wrong and Reagan couldn't have been more right.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Feb 14, 2007 12:18:54 AM

I wonder how Captain Toke felt about Nixon unilaterally abandoning biological weapons.

Posted by: Consumatopia | Feb 14, 2007 12:40:31 AM

Thank you for this post. I have taken the position that anyone who says "all options are on the table" is a danger to world peace. "All options" would logically include the current US doctrine of unilateral preemptive war, which in practice has actually been the more extreme doctrine of preventive war (where there is no imminent threat). So we need to challenge every politician, Democrat, Liberal, or whatever, who utters that Bush "all options" mantra by demanding to know just what options they have in mind.

Posted by: DeanOR | Feb 14, 2007 12:59:44 AM

Credible threat and the "on the table" formality aren't entirely the same thing. I think there is probably too much being made of the formality. Bush has said clearly that he has no intention of attacking Iran. Saying more than that isn't going to be much more convincing.

It's no accident that no mainstream presidential candidate will take force off the table completely. Even if you agree with publius about Iran, if you start going further than Bush has and say force is off the table of theoretical options, you have to start saying why the same isn't true for North Korea, Syria, and so on. Does refusal to rule it out elsewhere mean you really plan to attack? You can't just consider Iran in isolation on this point. And it's meaningless anyway. Everyone knows no President of any country would feel the least bit bound by such a pledge when a reason for military force arose.

It's worth focussing on being less bellicose, but the "off the table" formality isn't the main part of that.

We should try to engage Iran more positively. We've already threatened the economic sanctions, and we're trying to line up other nations to join in that.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 14, 2007 1:21:53 AM

Ambiguity was a significant part of the western response to the cold war. We made it clear that if attacked first with nuclear weapons, that we would massively respond, destroying the Soviet Union. We also extended this umbrella to our allies.

The exception to this policy was in the Cuban Missile Crisis, faced with installed missiles and nuclear warheads 90 miles from the US. Kennedy chose a naval blockade instead of a preventive air attack. Eyeball to eyeball, the Soviets blinked. And we backed down some too, accepting, under the table, the Soviet demand to remove US missiles from Turkey.

But we never indicated exactly how we would respond to other forms of attack, either in Europe or Asia.

It was never necessary, nor desireable, to state all options were on the table.

Frankly, the repetition of 'all options on the table' by the Democratic leaders and candidates is just another example of the Republic party dominating the discussion with their attacks on soft Dems. And the Dems roll over each time, exposing their bellies to the fangs of Rovian attack dogs.

Another example of this is the focus on 'protecting the troops' in Iraq, to which the Dems bow multiple times per day. The best protection of our troops is getting them home in a safe, orderly manner before they become fodder for the parties in a civil and sectarian war.

BushCo is really saying 'protect the Cheney/Bush administration' (and the GOP) each time they raise the 'protect the troops' mantra. Protecting the troops would include adequate armor, adequate psychological counseling for PTSD, adequate VA Hospital funding, adequate time away from the front for training and R&R - none of which BushCo has done, and they don't get rammed in public for these failures.

Let's face it, the Dems are the Bobobos of the great ape family (peaceful, caring, non warlike), and the Repubs are the Chimps, murdering each other, dominating females through beatings, and killing infants not of their fathering. [Both the chimps and bonobos are currently thought to have been offshoots of the same ancestors of humans, way back before the 6 thousand years of Republic Party/Creationist anti-science.]

I'm sick (and very very tired) of Dems fawning to Repubs. and letting the fascists choose the discourse.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 14, 2007 2:50:54 AM

JimPOR, yes there were some gray areas in the MAD doctrine, but remember that during the Cold War the US did have a no first strike policy. No way of knowing how authentic it was.

That said, I think SanPete's right on target in terms of diplomatic language in general. With regards to Iran, however, I'd say that in the absence of any positive incentives, such as the offer of a security guarantee in exchange for renouncing uranium enrichment, the credible threat of attack is a de-stabilizing influence on the negotiation process.

Both the EU and the US agree that sanctions won't be enough to get the Iranians to bargain. It will take a two-track approach. The EU favors incentives (ie. carrot & stick) as the second track. The US favors credible threat of attack (ie. stick & aluminum baseball bat). Which may explain why the EU takes as a foregone conclusion that Iran will eventually have uranium enrichment capacity.

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 14, 2007 5:43:28 AM

Yes, good post. There's a huge chasm between what is right and what Democratic politicians--especially those running for president--are willing to do. The job of progressives should be to make it safe for politicians to be progressive. And, of course, it would help if pols met us halfway. If they led, in other words.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 14, 2007 9:02:52 AM

Sanpete,

We've been down this road before. But here's something new from the Bush Administration:

Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney’s national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 “the year of Iran” and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility.

The Bush Administration is doing more than simply "keeping all options on the table." The rhetoric is ramping up. A 3rd carrier strike group has moved into the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon is citing Iranian sources for IED's and other weapons that are killing US troops in Iraq, despite the fact that it's the Sunnis that are the main source of violence against our troops. We raided the Iranian consulate in Kurdistan.

When military assets are on the move and information is coming out of strategy sessions and we have already attacked Iranian interests in Iraq and "evidence" is being fabricated about Iranian involvement in the insurgency, why should it matter what Bush has said in his public announcements?

The evidence is mounting, yet you persist in providing Bush's public words as your only evidence that an attack on Iran is not forthcoming.

And why is it that we're trying to impose further economic sanctions against Iran? Pakistan already has nuclear weapons; is there anyone besides Bush who actually thinks Pakistan is our "ally?" North Korea has nuclear technology, and the US just signed onto an agreement that provides not only a bunch of aid to them but also a path to normalizing diplomatic relations. We're still in an official state of declared war against North Korea, and skirmishes are a daily fact of life along the DMZ. The reason we don't hear about them very much is because they are so common. North Korea and South Korea fight small naval battles all the time over fishing grounds and such. Every 1-2 years North Korea manages to get some commando team inserted into South Korea, and people are told to stay away - usually the mountain resort area of Sorak-san - until they're rounded up.

And though there is no dissident movement, no demands for greater liberalism or democracy as there is in Iran, though the people are more oppressed than they are in Iran and the country is actually more heavily militarized, North Korea gets a path to full recognition and diplomatic relations and Iran gets a 3rd carrier strike group, threats of sanctions and highly placed US officials declaring 2007 to be "the year of Iran" in which a "US attack is a real possibility."

In a very real way, then, military force against North Korea has, in fact, been taken "off the table." Yet it is clearly "on the table" for Iran.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 14, 2007 9:15:13 AM

Captain Toke:

Yip! Yip! Yip!

Had Reagan never existed, the Soviet Union would still have fallen. Had Pope John Paul II never existed, we very well could be facing the Soviet Union.

Blah blah blah, broke their budget, blah blah blah. But without the common people of Eastern Europe - especially Poland - rising up against their governments, the governments would still be in place. The Soviet Union would not have been the only bankrupt dictatorship in history.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 14, 2007 9:19:45 AM

Sanpete,

I do agree that "credible threat" and "on the table" are distinctly different (and that the use of on or off the table is not the most important part of this discussion), but you still seem enamored with the idea that Bush is telling the truth when he says he has no intention of attacking Iran. I don't know how likely it is, but there are signs that suggest that it is more than just one of the "options on the table." You also haven't given a reason why that taking the military threat against Iran off the table, means that we have to take it off the table against North Korea, Syria, and so on.

My complaint about this administration is that was too quick to move to the military option against Iraq; this does not mean that wars are always the wrong option. There is a difference between being "anti-war" and "anti-this-war." I may be against this war (or a proposed war against Iran), but that does not make me against all wars.

Jim, I am with you about the rhetoric of "supporting the troops." Why this is the focus is beyond me. Supporting the troops is a given, unless we accept that there are those in Congress who hate the troops. Democrats must find a way to change the direction of this conversation.

Posted by: jmack | Feb 14, 2007 10:30:41 AM

I'd say that in the absence of any positive incentives, such as the offer of a security guarantee in exchange for renouncing uranium enrichment, the credible threat of attack is a de-stabilizing influence on the negotiation process.

That may be true, but the focus is on the wrong thing. The focus should be on the lack of carrot, direct talks and so on rather than on the formality.

Stephen, JMack, the road we've been down before isn't the same one that we're on here. I said nothing above about whether Bush plans to invade Iran. I only said that he's already denied it plainly and that his taking military force "off the table" won't make what he says any more convincing.

Stephen, I've already responded to some of what you say in comments that I suspect you overlooked. (I think you sometimes miss the last response.) I'm not surprised that someone in Cheney's office says such a thing. You may be heartened a little by the rumors that Cheney and his gang no longer have the influence in the White House that they once did. Apparently even Bush can recognize that he got bad advice.

The Pentagon is citing Iranian sources for IED's and other weapons that are killing US troops in Iraq, despite the fact that it's the Sunnis that are the main source of violence against our troops.

Iranians are currentlty being singled out for some things; at other times the Syrians and others have been just as aggressively singled out for other things. The main claim is that the EFPs, a particularly dangerous weapon that limits US tactics by its presence, come from Iran, accounting for over 100 deaths. They aren't blaming them for the rest.

"evidence" is being fabricated about Iranian involvement in the insurgency

You haven't established that.

why should it matter what Bush has said in his public announcements?

I didn't say it should, in the context of deciding what he plans to do.

you persist in providing Bush's public words as your only evidence that an attack on Iran is not forthcoming

For the third time in as many weeks, this is flatly false. If you actually read what I've said on this, you not only won't find me appealing to Bush's words in this manner (rather only to correct the record when others bring it up) but you will see what my evidence really is.

And why is it that we're trying to impose further economic sanctions against Iran?

Presumably because the administration believes that to be the best way to deal with them. It isn't only us. We're in this with others who have lost patience with Iran's excuses on its nuclear program. We used similar tactics against North Korea. Pakistan has been far more cooperative than Iran, and has been more crucial in its alliance.

You also haven't given a reason why that taking the military threat against Iran off the table, means that we have to take it off the table against North Korea, Syria, and so on.

JMack, I didn't say that. What I said is that we have to start explaining why we don't take it off the table, why we do with Iran but not the others.

There is an obvious problem with saying we support the troops, then saying we think the mission they're on is wrong and pointless, and then leaving them out there to die for it anyway. How is that supporting the troops? The claim is that it's laying the groundwork for later binding resolutions, but I can't see that. Not only does it not lay groundwork in any needed way, but there is zero chance of getting a binding resolution restricting Bush through the Senate. The nonbinding resolution is, sadly, for politics. I think it's shameful and counterproductive.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 14, 2007 1:16:08 PM

Sanpete,

The only other evidence you have cited is that the US "can't" attack Iran, that to do so "would make no sense," that Bush "doesn't have the troops" and so on. This isn't evidence. This is your view of the logistical and materiel situation of the US military and your assumptions about Bush's response to that.

Further, when confronted with the similarities between Bush Admin statements now and before Iraq, you make the claim that those who were the architects of the Iraq War are gone. Except that the orders to make plans to attack Iraq were given by George Bush himself at the very beginning of his presidency. You're giving him the exact political cover he was looking for when he canned Rumsfeld.

I'm sorry if you're frustrated with me (truly), but I've already addressed what you believe to be evidence in your favor, and it's just your assessments and assumptions about this matter. If the Bush Admin was not making the statements and pursuing the actions we see it doing, I would not consider an attack against Iran likely.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 14, 2007 2:47:48 PM

We've heard Bush say that he didn't have plans to attack when he actually did. He used up all his credibility on Iraq.

Posted by: eriks | Feb 14, 2007 3:10:44 PM

Stephen, there's a difference between not agreeing with my evidence or how I interpret it and claiming that I just haven't cited any. It's just strange to claim it isn't evidence. It's facts that you mostly don't dispute that are relevant to the issue, which you apparently interpret in some other way. Shall I claim that what you adduce isn't evidence either? Are your views somehow beyond your assessments of the matter?

I'm not familiar with the claim that Bush ordered planning to attack Iraq right at the beginning of his presidency, unless it was signing off on new contingency plans that he did on large batches and that meant nothing about actual plans. All the accounts I've seen show Rumsfeld and others started pushing for Iraq after September 11th, with Powell more against, and that Bush had no plan to actually attack before that. I don't care about political cover. I care about what actually happened. Most of those who were pushing for Iraq are gone, and Cheney is probably no longer so powerful.

The whole idea of attacking Iran remains several orders of magnitude crazier than attacking Iraq ever was, something you haven't disputed, with very few arguing for it in comparison to Iraq, which you haven't disputed, and no real capacity to do anything but start a war, rather than fight one, which you haven't disputed. The most likely explanation of the ratcheting up of pressure on Iran, independently of what he says about it, remains that Bush thinks it might help save American lives in Iraq. All of your evidence is explained quite well by that, and it doesn't require that Bush and Gates and a lot of others be several shades more nuts than Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and so on ever were.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 14, 2007 4:09:35 PM

SanPete, can't really tell for sure, but I think you and I are in agreement. My emphasis was on Bush's intransigence agianst offering any positive incentives whatsoever, which make the bellicosity all the more dangerous.

BTW, Washington Babylon's got a must read on the Iran dossier, some wtf stuff from the intel community:

http://www.harpers.org/sb-war-with-ir-1171457451.html

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 14, 2007 8:52:02 PM

BTW, Washington Babylon's got a must read on the Iran dossier, some wtf stuff from the intel community:

http://www.harpers.org/sb-war-with-ir-1171457451.html

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 14, 2007 8:52:03 PM

Ooops. Double post.

Make that a triple.

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 14, 2007 8:53:12 PM

Yeah, HJ, I think we're on pretty much the same page.

Interesting collection of views at the link. Surprising how few of the ideas weren't already expressed here in the last few weeks. I think we could offer our services, collectively, to the CIA.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 15, 2007 2:33:06 AM

SanPete,

I loved the part, though, about the Revolutionary Guard boat runners. To think WWIII could be set off by the equivalent of some frat guys on a porn run...

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 15, 2007 4:15:51 AM

HJ: JimPOR, yes there were some gray areas in the MAD doctrine, but remember that during the Cold War the US did have a no first strike policy.

Slightly off-topic, but this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

The US has always threatened to use nuclear weapons first against a conventional attack (for example, a Soviet move against NATO). It was the USSR, not the US, that pledged no-first-use; given their conventional superiority in Europe, they had nothing to gain from going nuclear.

Posted by: ajay | Feb 15, 2007 9:56:20 AM

ajay: I stand corrected.

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 15, 2007 12:56:28 PM

The problem with the "Iran is only getting nukes to deter attack" theory is that having nuclear weapons won't actually deter a US attack. First, the only reason the US would attack Iran is if Iran attacked us first, probably using their terrorist proxies. If they do that again in the post-9/11 era, it doesn't matter if they have nukes or not. We will eliminate their regime.

If Iran truly wanted to defend itself from the US, they'd halt support for terrorists and use that money to improve their horrid military.

Since they are not slowing down funding to their terrorist proxies, and since their nuclear program started long before Bush, it's obvious that they want nukes because they want to resume their terrorist campaign against the West after being forced to halt it in the 90s by the Clinton administration after Khobar Towers nearly resulted in war with the US.

Thinking that taking the military option off the table would get Iran to stop their nuclear program is pure fantasy.

It is also pure fantasy to think that anyone but the craziest neocon supports a preemptive attack on Iran. Even Bush knows we don't have the ability at this point to undertake such a mission.

What this is about is tightening the screws. It is absolutely the right policy.

Posted by: Adam Herman | Feb 15, 2007 3:09:49 PM

qzunlm nmycosjvg xnpmo wgyjdui nluiqr ahqrxkl hnup

Posted by: ywop jcsh | Mar 9, 2007 1:25:48 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘